Jeanne De Rakhsh's Iran Secular Democracy

Why Iranians Have Not Risen Up?

2008-02-16T23:59:00.000-08:00

"why have not the Iranian people risen up and given the Ayatollahs and their poodles the Mussolini treatment, shot and hanged upside down from a lamppost? The Pharaohs of Tehran have now ruled Iran for 29 years, oppressing and impoverishing the Iranians and directing terrorism against the outside world..."

To be sure, the Iranian people are suffering under the mullah’s tyranny.

But they are also suffering from inaction and disillusionment due to reasons which include:

(a) The regime has all but eliminated any and every form of opposition inside the country by mostly murdering them. It seems there are no Mossadegh's, Lech Walesa's, or Kamal Ataturk's left in Iran, thanks to the regime's political murder machine.

(b) Vacillating or lack of meaningful support for democratic movement in Iran from the West, and in particular the ever-changing hot/cold US policy towards the regime. In the eyes of the Iranian people who seek a secular democracy, US Iran policy cannot be trusted since US sate department has been seeking more to make deals (e.g., Grand Bargain) with the terrorist regime, than to confront it in any meaningful way. Unfortunately, this misguided and inconsistent US policy has created, amongst Iranians, mistrust and lack of confidence about US support for a genuine democratic movement in Iran.

(c) Most Iranians are afflicted by a combination of fear, political apathy, regime media propaganda and brain-washing, depression, day to day survival battling soaring prices, etc.

(d) In addition to being frightened of the regime, the more affluent, the technocrats, the Bourgeoisie, etc. in Iran do not care about politics per se. They are too busy making huge profits on a real estate bubble economy and import/export with Gulf States, and with their indoor dinner parties, Caspian Sea and Kharg Island villas, etc.--This class has an undeclared "silent pact" with the regime: leave us alone, and we will leave politics alone.

(e) Most youth, high school and college age students are into everything but politics these days. Fashion and style, plastic surgeries to improve facial features (for males as well as females), fixation on clandestine sexual gratification, fad drugs, and other superficialities seem to have taken an upper hand to the bitter and painful realities of living in the hell that the mullahs have created for the young generation. The ones who can afford it, are dying to get out of Iran at any cost.

There are other reasons, but the above are just some major ones that come to mind.

Don't Count On "Students" Changing Regime in Iran

2008-02-03T13:50:00.000-08:00

It was only 2-weeks ago or so when Condi Rice said, again, that US is willing to discuss "normalcy" in relations with Iran if only Iran stopped enrichment, etc. (can you say, ‘Legacy’?). And President Bush, in turn, made the same old hollow "warnings" to the "Tehran Regime" in his State of Union address. But the contradiction in their Iran policy is so severe and pathetic that even Iran regime’s assistant foreign minister reacted to Bush's Iran references by saying that Bush "warnings" to Iran were "repetitive and boring rhetoric"!

As for the student demonstrations in Iran now and in the past, yes, these students are chanting "Death to the Dictator", but they have never have chanted "Death to the Islamic Republic of Iran". The reason is quiet clear to the people inside Iran: these students are supported by the reformist faction within the regime, i.e., Euro-mullahs faction led by Khatami and Rafsanjani. Since the parliamentary 'elections' are near in March, these 'students' are once again instigated by reformist to stage demonstrations not against the regime as a whole, but against the faction opposing reformists, i.e., Ahamdinejad and Khamenei et al. These reformist-instigated protests are designed to weaken the hardliners politically so that the reformists could come back into majority in the parliament come spring.

These 'student' protests are no call for revolution, I am afraid; indeed they are in fact for the strengthening and preservation of the "reformist" faction within the same regime. They are designed to preserve the regime, not to destroy it. So, it would be wishful and naive to see these protests as a sign that 'regime change' will happen from within Iran. There are no meaningful, genuine, or organized opposition that will pose a threat to the regime as a whole. The opposition that could organize a regime changing movement has been systematically arrested, and killed by the regime in the past 27-years.

As for “sanctions”, the first 2 have had no meaningful impact on the regime, and the coming third, and watered-down sanction, also promises to be as ineffective.

There is only one solution left for Iran regime change, but no one wants to talk about it. And that's not happening for the foreseeable future. In fact if Hussein Obama is elected, we will have an “Anti-Regime Change” in Iran with Hussein Obama drinking Persian tea and eating sweets with the Iranian mullahs shortly after he places his hand on the Koran (like it is purported that he did when being sworn in as a Senator) to swear in as the President of the USA.

Islamist Plant in US Political System

2008-01-23T00:50:00.001-08:00

Hussein Obama: I'm Not a Muslim!

Yeah, right; and Hitler was a jew too, I suppouse!...

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/muslim_obama_carolina/2008/01/22/66563.html

Iran Regime Oil Sales Booming

2008-01-11T13:07:00.000-08:00

More and more evidence every day that US policy towards Iranian regime has utterly failed politically, as well as economically.

It's time for a new Republican adminstration who is actually willing to be decisive and take action against the Theocracy in Tehran to take over the White House.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=205413&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=30297

Game of Gulf: US Inaction & Weakness

2008-01-11T13:02:00.000-08:00

The Tehran Theocracy's hardline faction, i.e., Ahmadinejad and Khamenei and their cohorts had obviously pre-planned and pre-staged this ridiculous show of thuggish-ness in the gulf.

As to the reasons for it, here is why I think they did it:

1) To send a warning to US and Israel (however unprofessionally and clumsily); by making it coincide with Bush’s trip to Israel where he wants to unite the region against Iran and its clients Hezbollah and Hamas. The message being that they can, at any time of their choosing, attempt to blow up a hole in the side of a US navy ship (like the Yemen event during Bill Clinton.)

2) To show --once again-- that they (Iranian regime) are irrational, international thugs and rogues who do not give a hoot about international maritime protocol or law. A kind of thuggish "Don't Mess with Me" message.

3) To send a loud warning to the "reformists" (mullahs with European ties) inside the Iranian regime who are now preparing themselves to be included in the parliamentary elections in 2 months time in Iran. Khamenei made a speech only yesterday condemning those "reformists" whom he called "traitors" for calling for the presence of international observers (including American observers) during the said elections. Khamenei also heard what Bush said a day or two ago that he, Bush, supports "moderate leaders" from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut (It now seems painfully clear that our President has totally lost grip on Iran, and has lost his way on Iran altogether to the forces of appeasement in the state department who support the European mullahs faction in Iran.)

4) The Iranian regime knows that US/Bush cannot do anything militarily against them right now since this is an election year, and also due to the NIE on Iran which helped the mullahs greatly in their objectives. So, they are pulling Bush's chain by these theatrics in the gulf to show to all Arab gulf states that, as the mammoth banner inscription says above Khamenei’s head whenever he delivers a speech, “America Cannot Do a Damn Thing!” (This is, incidentally, Khomeini’s old phrase.)

So, yeah, unless something really unexpected happens between now and 2009, it seems that this President will be retreating into his bunker on Iran for the rest of his term: And that is exactly what the mullahs are hoping for.

The mullahs also hope for Hussein Obama, who has a soft spot in his heart for all Islamists internationally, to get into the White House in 2009; when we will all be in bed together with Iranian regime, and be singing kumbaya with the mullahs as conducted by Hussein Obama himself. But that will only mean that the mullahs will get us again and again, on the time of their choosing. And that the regime will, on a more likely basis than not, get their nuclear weapons during Obama’s term.

Treacherous days await America.

US Appeasement & Weakness on Iran -- Again & Again

2007-12-30T16:30:00.000-08:00

The point is, it was a US President who used the term "Axis of Evil" with Iran regime amongst one of the Evils that must be confronted. But instead, several years after his speech, we are making deals with Iranian regime, and appeasing them every chance we get. And we have not done anything drastic or really threatening to the existence of that "Evil" regime, either. That is something we have to face.

We have switched between soft and hard (only in rhetoric) policy so many times with Iran since 2001, that it is enough to spin any mullah's head and ultimately make him laugh out loud at our painfully transparent and ineffective policy towards them.

Not only we have not helped the opposition to overthrow the regime, but we have been actively seeking --desperately I might add -- to make deals and compromises with this member of the now hollow term "Axis of Evil".

We have also failed to do much with another "Axis of Evil" member, North Korea; as we have managed to make Iraq into a blazing quagmire for which we now seek and need another "Axis of Evil" member, Iran's help to "fix"? What happened to our high and mighty goals for the region here?

It's high time we faced our own evils, our inconsistent foreign policy, and failure in achieving what we set out to do.

As John Bolton said recently, our foreign policy is in a "free fall". He must be congratulated on his straight forward realism in seeing things as they really are.

But, the fact is that our on-again/ off-again, confused, and extremely inconsistent policy towards Iran has created the perfect breeding grounds for all sorts of theories to emerge.

Another one of these theories is that in US's latest round of "play nice" with Iran recently, Iran's "help" in Iraq (to quell violence that Iran itself started), could have been part of a back-door deal between US and the regime in Tehran. The deal was purportedly exchanged releasing some (10) remaining Iranian "POWs" in Iraq, and more importantly US finally giving the "go ahead" to Russia to deliver the nuclear fuel that Iran had been begging from Russia for over a year.

I think the best way to prevent people from coming up with theories is to fix our own policy towards Iran, which has been -quiet frankly- a disastrous failure.

Bush's 'Axis of Evil' Scorecard & Failure on Iran

2007-12-30T16:03:00.000-08:00

December 21, 2007
Bush's 'Axis of Evil' ScorecardBy Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Just four months after 9/11, George Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" and declared that defanging these rogue regimes was America's most urgent national security task. Bush will be judged on whether he succeeded.
Six years later and with time running out on this administration, the Bush legacy is clear: one for three. Contrary to current public opinion, Bush will have succeeded on Iraq, failed on Iran and fought North Korea to a draw.

Iran. Bush has thrown in the towel on Iran's nuclear program because the intelligence bureaucracy, in a spectacularly successful coup, seized control of the policy with a National Intelligence Estimate that very misleadingly trumpeted the claim that Iran had halted its nuclear program. In fact, Iran only halted the least important component of its nuclear program, namely weaponization.

GA_googleFillSlot("RCP_Article_Middle_300x250");
The hard part is the production of the nuclear fuel. Iran continues enriching uranium with 3,000 centrifuges at work in open defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Once you have the necessary fuel, you can make the bomb in only a few months.

Thus to even speak of the Iranian program as having been stopped while enrichment continues is absurd. And that is true even if you discount recent dissidents' reports that the weaponization program, suspended in 2003, in fact resumed the following year -- contrary to the current NIE estimate, offered with only "moderate confidence," that it has never been restarted.
The administration had to immediately release and accept the NIE's sensational conclusions because the report would have been leaked and the administration then accused of covering up good news to justify going to war, the assumption being that George Bush and Dick Cheney have a Patton-like lust for the smell of battle.

The administration understands that the NIE's distorted message that Iran has given up pursuing nukes has not only taken any military option off the table but jeopardized any further sanctions against Iran. Making the best of the lost cause, Bush will now go through the motions until the end of his term, leaving the Iranian bomb to his successor.

North Korea. We did get Kim Jong Il to disable his plutonium-producing program. The next step is for Pyongyang to disclose all nuclear activities. This means coming clean on past proliferation and on the clandestine uranium enrichment program that North Korea had once admitted but now denies.

Knowing we have no credible threats against North Korea, we now come bearing carrots. President Bush writes a personal letter to Kim Jong Il, in essence entreating him to come clean on his nuclear program so we can proceed to full normalization.

Disabling the plutonium reactor is an achievement and we do gain badly needed intelligence by simply being there on the ground to inspect. There is, however, no hope of North Korea giving up its existing nuclear weapons stockpile, and little assurance that we will find, let alone disable, any clandestine programs. But lacking sticks, we take what we can.

Iraq is a different story. Whatever our subsequent difficulties, our initial success definitively rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his monstrous sons. The Hussein dynasty will not -- as it would have, absent the U.S. invasion -- rebuild, rearm and threaten the world.
The taking down of Saddam led directly to Libya's full nuclear disarmament and, undoubtedly, to Iran's 2003 suspension of weaponization. As for Iraq itself, after three years of disorientation, the U.S. has finally found a winning counterinsurgency strategy.

It took Bush three years to find his general (as it did Lincoln) and turn a losing war into a winnable one. Baghdad and Washington are currently discussing a long-term basing agreement that could give the United States permanent military presence in the region and a close cooperative relationship with the most important country in the Middle East heartland -- a major strategic achievement.

Nonetheless, the pressure on this administration and the next to get out prematurely will remain. There are those for whom our only objective in Iraq is reducing troop levels rather than securing a potentially critical Arab ally in a region of supreme strategic significance.
On North Korea and Iran, with no real options at hand, the Bush administration heads to the finish line doing what Sen. George Aiken once suggested for Vietnam: Declare victory and go home. With no good options available, those decisions are entirely understandable. But if Bush or his successor does an Aiken on Iraq, where success is a real option, history will judge him severely.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Regime Change? What Regime Change?

2007-12-23T14:39:00.000-08:00

Suddenly, Iran is helping quell the violence in Iraq, US is talking ‘talks’ and compromise with Iran, Iraq violence subsides, and Iranian regime gets its long awaited nuclear fuel shipment from Russia for its Bushehr nuclear plan (which incidentally, President Bush actually praised since he said it meant that Iran does not have to continue with enrichment anymore.) What?!

What could be the possible reasons for such sudden White House playing happy times with Iran?

The White House says Iran is helping quell violence in Iraq since the Iranians have realized that the violence they instigated was turning the Shiite masses. A weak argument at best, since Tehran regime has never shied away from mass opposition to it. Case in point are the Iranian people themselves who have been by a large majority against the regime, yet the regime keeps on persecuting them un-flinched for almost 29 years.

The most plausible reason for this sudden semi-détente with Tehran is what the Bush administration has not told us about. And that is, a back door, behind-the-scene deal between US and Iran: Help us bring back peace to Iraq in exchange for US backing out a notch on your nuclear program. The Iranians brought up their POWs in Iraq, and their long awaited nuclear fuel shipment from Russia that has been blocked by the US so far. In return, US agreed to deliver, releasing Iranian POWs in Iraq, and signaling to Russia that it was now OK to release the first shipment of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

So are we ready to send Condi Rice to Tehran to sing Kumbaya with the mullahs now? Perhaps not, but we are certainly laying the foundation for having the option to not to oppose it later.

Furthermore, it could seem that US, in a tactical move, is cooperating with Iran in order to quiet down Iraqi violence for political reasons, most likely for the 2008 presidential elections. When Iraq calms down, US troops will be relocated to Afghanistan which will help boost Bush’s poll numbers. The Bush administration is trying to create an atmosphere in which the next Republican presidential nominee (most likely McCain) could actually win.

If true, it could be deduced then, that any serious, drastic action against the Iranian regime –if it ever happens at all—is being postponed until the next Republican president takes hold of the White House in January 2009.

The new Republican president, if he does get elected, may –some time in his term-- initiate military action against Iranian regime for the purpose of regime change, or just surgical strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

On the other hand, depending on how many more Iran-appeasing deals Condi Rice makes with the mullahs between now and 2009, and whether the internal political structure in Iran changes in favor of the ‘reformist’ Khatami/Rafsanjani crowd (who have EU ties), we could be setting the stage for shelving the ‘regime change’ idea permanently in favor of ‘peaceful co-existence’ with Iran for the foreseeable future. And naturally, this will be especially true if an Obama, or a Chelsea’s Mama get into the White House in 2009.

Condi Rice: Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

2007-12-22T20:28:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Condi Rice, what is actually happening vis a vis Iran right now is about 180 degrees in opposition with any sort of 'regime change'.

The President has, sadly, given up the helm of our most critical foreign policies, both substantively and directionally, to appeasers and deal-makers like Condi Rice, Robert Gates, et al.

"US Has No Permanent Enemies", asserted our esteemed secretary of state on December 21, 2007. "I continue to say that if Iran will just do the one thing...— and that is suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities — then I'm prepared to meet my counterpart any place and anytime and anywhere and we can talk about anything.", Rice continued. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/12/21/national/w073848S16.DTL

By emphasizing only one condition to start getting chummy with Iran and begin the Libya-nization of the Iranian regime, Rice has been betraying the initial 'axis of evil' directive to overthrow the 'axis of evil' regimes. Instead, she has long been extremely eager to sit down at the table and please the Iranians at any and all cost. Rice and her cohorts have betrayed the original 'axis of evil' policy set by the President, as well as our interest in the region.

But Rice has done more than that: She has also betrayed the secular democracy movement in Iran.

Instead of supporting Iran's secular democratic opposition by any and every means at our disposal, we are actually trying our damnest to make deals with a rotting, wobbly, medieval despotic Theocracy in Tehran. By saying last week that it is time for those who oppose Uranium enrichment in Iran to step forward, Rice is only hoping for the return of the Iranian "reformists" like Khatami and Rafsanjani, the mullahs in the regime who have European ties.

So basically, Rice’s version of ‘regime change’ in Iran is ‘No’ to Ahmadinejad, but a big ‘Yes’ to Khatami and/or Rafsanjani and their Euro-mullah crowd.

Seems some in the Bush administration are so desperate to leave some sort of a legacy behind that they are quiet willing to sacrifice not only our national security, but even democracy itself to achieve their fantasized and hollow legacy.

Questions that should be asked by serious observers here are these: Is this really our policy towards Iran? Is this what we wanted from the start?

NIE, US Deal with Iran on Iraq, and the "Axis of Leeway"

2007-12-20T11:39:00.000-08:00

Well, the NIE is just another sign of the forces of Iran-appeasement taken over the US policy. Condi, Gates, Admiral Fallon, the whole of state department, liberal Dems, all backed by Iran operatives in US media like Trita Parsi, Ray Takyeh, Vali Nasr, etc.

They are all collectively staging a COUP against Bush on Iran. And Bush himself has given in to Condi and state department's Iran-appeasing policy.

What's more, there are rumblings of a DEAL made with the Iranian regime: Iraq peace in return for US leaving the regime alone on nuclear issue, regime change, etc.
It seems to be working. Iraq is quieter now, and US released more Iranian prisoners in Iraq today (See http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-19-voa26.cfm).

Also, Bush praised Russian nuclear fuel shipment to Iran last week. Add the Dovish statements coming out of US officials on Iran, and it all points to a White House/State Department/Iran Regime deal.

Meanwhile, not a BEEP from VP Cheney who has been dealt a major blow on Iran.

This is a big blow for secular democracy in Iran and its supporters. So much for Bush’s “Axis of Evil”. It turned out more like the “Axis of Leeway.”

There is no hope for Bush et al. to do anything of value against the Iranian regime for the remainder of their stay.

If we get lucky, we will have a Giuliani/McCain ticket (or vice versa) sweep into power in 2009 who will surely not be coy against the despotic Theocracy in Tehran.

Otherwise, Hussein Obama or Chelsea's Mama, will both throw the baby with the bath water on Iran; that much is for sure.

NIE Setting Stage for the Return of Euro-Mullahs in Iran

2007-12-15T13:32:00.000-08:00

Strengthened by the NIE, the regime 'Reformists', i.e., mullahs with EU ties, are already coiling to pounce back into power by setting Ahmadinejad aside in the upcoming spring 2008 Majlis elections. See: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22928071-5005961,00.html
And, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071214/wl_nm/iran_reformists_dc

If and when EU's favorite mullahs Khatami and Rafsanjani take back the helm inside the regime, the chances of EU support for 'regime change' will die off completely.

It is all meshing in well with what is going on in the US vis a vis Iran. We seem to have made up our minds to go towards making deals with Ahmadinejad's Euro-mullah replacements in Iran. We seem to be hanging our hopes on that right now.

Our misguided and timid Iran policies have led to a situation where all signs are pointing to an upcoming new lease on life for the Islamist-Fascist regime in Iran in the foreseeable future. Albeit, this time around, it will be "Back to the Future" with smiling "reformist" Euro-mullahs like Khatami back in charge again.

SIDE NOTE: Ahmadinejad has been invited by the Saudis to perform the annual HAJJ ceremonies in Mecca, starting Dec. 18th. Now, there are rumors circulating in the net that he may not make it back to Iran intact from this trip to Mecca...

The stage is set. The handwriting seems to be well on the wall: the Iran 'regime change' effort is pretty much over, and has turned into a sham and a scam.

Too bad for Iranians secular democracy aspirations. Thanks to our wishy-washy Iran policy under Bush and company.

The Grand Bargain Again

2007-12-15T13:29:00.001-08:00

I wrote about the Leveretts in my Iran blog at http://mor2com.blogspot.com/. Check under previous posts where I referred to them as what they were: Iran Appeasers.
The fact is that the disgruntled Leveretts have personal axes to grind with the Bush administration, and yes, they also support the "grand bargain" scenario.

But Hey, we do not even have to go that far out (or down so low) to find Iran "grand bargain" advocates: Look here, our own Ms. Condi Rice is one, too. Talk about a contradictory administration pulling the Iran cart in opposite directions. No wonder nothing serious got done on Iran in 7 years under Bush.

The NIE was concocted by the same groups who are Iran "grand bargainers".

NIE was basically a political "coup" against VP Cheney's Iran policy, as well as a loud warning to the President and the VP not to even think of pursuing the military option against the Iran-Appeasers beloved Islamist-Fascist Iranian regime.

We have been nurturing the enemy in our own home.

What's more, the NIE may have succeeded in what it intended to do. It has dealt a major blow to the administration's already wobbly, ineffective, and quiet frankly very timid Iran policy.

What’s worse is what may follow, even Ahmadinejad wants to do a “grand bargain” now: He said in a speech the other day that the NIE was a “good step forward” and if the US takes 2 or 3 similar “positive steps” towards Iran, he is willing to talk deal with US and make good. Bravo State Department. Congradulations to Condi.

What is even more horrifying, and the possible next shoe to drop, could be the return of the European mullahs--a.k.a. "Reformists", like Khatami and Rafsanjani, back at the helm in Iran by spring 2008 (scheduled Majlis members elections.) If that happens, all bets are off on anything near 'regime change' being supported by EU.

In fact, after that, the only thing that could complement the return of the Euro-mullahs in Iran will be a Hussein Obama, or a Chelsea's Mama in the White House in '09 who will promptly strike a “grand bargain’ with the Islamist-Fascists regime in Tehran.

All because our President, who used to have thunder in his voice in the ‘axis of evil’ days, has given up and given in our Iran policy to Iran Appeasers like Condi Rice –(who is frankly utterly unqualified for ANY foreign policy capacity)—and has stooped to no resolve and timidity in dealing with the Iranian regime.

European Mullahs To Return & Save the Regime?

2007-12-11T12:35:00.000-08:00

The real coming danger in Iran is the return of Rafsanjani and/or Khatami to power, come spring 2008 majlis elections, or thereafter.

With such European mullahs--so-called "Reformists"-- back in power, the regime change option will be utterly lost for foreseeable future. But yet, that strategy is exactly what a lot of European political elite tied to Khatami and Rafsanjani; as well as their American co-conspirators inside US government, are working on right now.

If the "Reformists" and their backers are successful in conducting a "coup" and take over, it will be a worse situation than Ahmadinejad, since it will buy the Islamist-Fascists regime in Tehran another 29 years at the helm.

But, of course, you will see a smiling Euro-mullah Khatami or oil Mafia Rafsanjani's "shark" face, instead of the true face of the regime as reflected in Ahmadinejad's right now.

US's on-again/off-again hollow rhetorics, timid, and contradictory policy towards Iran has made the possibility of the Euro-mullahs in the regime coming back to "save the regime" much more likely; thanks to Condi Rice and her appeasement and incompetence on Iran, as well as the President's playing the indifferent observer when it comes to dealing seriously with the Iranian regime.

Our Failed Iran Non-Policy & the Price to Pay

2007-12-06T15:27:00.000-08:00

This is what happens when one gives the Iran policy helm to a novice, foreign policy screw-upper like Condi Rice. Condi has been in search of a legacy for herself, and she tried to appease the Iranian regime as much as she was able to, so she can leave office saying “Hey, I did it.” But the Iranians did not bite (point in case: the disastrous Condi run-in with Tehran officials in the Egypt regional peace conference earlier this year.)

I was a strong proponent of her in the start when she first became Secretary of Sate. But it took me some time, after witnessing her clumsy appeasing ways towards Iran regime, to see her for her true colors vis a vis Iran. She is of the school of Madeline Albright when it comes to Iran, namely, Sleep with the Mullahs and strike a “Grand Bargain” with them at any cost. If it were not for strong admonitions by the Vice President, she would have probably sold the house to the Iranian regime by now. Never mind that this Iran appeasement policy is diagonally opposite what she was told to do by the White House. As the President kept (and is even now) cutting her slack on Iran. Condi is just not cut out to be a Secretary of State of ANY country. She should go back to teaching in college, or head a basketball team, or something. Better yet, she should resign immediately, so perhaps we could have the shadow of a chance of a REAL Iran policy with someone else in charge.

Regarding the NIE, it is now known (today) that the 3 state department employees, who wrote it, based their "findings" that Iran stopped their WMD program in 2003, from non other than intercepted conversations amongst Iranian top military officials!
Of course, the problem with that is that the Iranians are no dummies. They knew that UK intelligence was listening in on their military communications, so they planted this piece of disinformation in their conversations to throw off the west on their real nuclear weapons program. But the “realist” liberals only too gleeful to publish this, irregardless of its flawed sources.

But regardless, the damage is now done.

The current administrations' already timid and abysmal Iran policy, with its total lack of support for Iranian democratic opposition, was already failing big anyway. This NIE just provided the last stake into the heart of its Iran policy. Condi should be fired for this.

No doubt, we will feel the repercussions of their Iran failure for years to come, long after "W" and Condi leave office.

IRAN BLOG at: http://mor2com.blogspot.com/

Path Towards the Legitimization of MEK?

2007-12-05T10:58:00.000-08:00

Dick Armey, former House Leader, is now calling for the legitimization of the MEK opposition group against the Iranian regime. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/EDITORIAL/112040004

MEK has already gained a lot of momentum and support in Europe towards their goal of being legitimized as a viable opposition to the regime in Tehran.

Their popular support within Iran amongst Iranians seems to be negative to neutral, at best. But given a choice, the Iranians may again grow to like MEK, especially if MEK starts making some real and physical waves (covert operations with selected targets inside Iran and the Theocratic leadership) against the regime. (In other words, why should all the explosions and assassinations be happening only in Iraq against the Iraqi government?)
Could we be getting ready to be going towards what Dick Armey and a lot of European political elite are now concurring on? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But at least Armey has a direction and logic to his strategy, which is diagonally opposed to the kind of rudderless Iran policy by Condi and cohorts.

No one is promoting MEK as a democratic alternative opposition here. But right or wrong, it is a breath of fresh air to see that some in Washington actually have a direction in their thoughts and strategies towards Iran as opposed to the hodge-podge Condi-diplomacy. It makes one wish that a decisive, focused, and clear-minded official like Dick Armey was actually in charge of our Iran policy. Oh well.

Iran Blog at: http://mor2com.blogspot.com/

President Bush's News Conference after Iran NIE bombshell: Adding Insult to Injury

2007-12-04T21:19:00.000-08:00

President Bush said something even more disturbing than his utterly failed Condi-led Iran policy today in his news conference:

He said something to the effect that the time before Ahamdinejad, (meaning at the time when the Europeans' favorite mullah Khatami's was still President), "was a HOPEFUL era (time?)"

Absolutely amazing! I could not believe my ears. It seems that our once clear-minded President (on Iran) has now lost his way more than we thought. He has now emerged on the side of the EU's Iran policy, which is namely, no regime change, but only bringing back Khatami, Rafsanjani, and the rest of the European mullahs back into power, and call it good as the "HOEPFUL" times will be here again afterwards!

Also, in his statement referring to Khatami's reign as president of the regime in Iran as "a HOPEFUL time", President Bush must have forgotten that it was during Khatami's presidency, according to the NIE itself, that Iran's nuclear weapon program started (and then stopped in 2003).

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "HOPEFUL", doesn't it?

What a cop-out! And a major decline in this Presidency, a total free fall of our failed foreign policy towards Iran. Thanks to Condi and the rest of the Iran-softies, and Iran-appeasers surrounding the President.

These defeatist, and desperate statements by us will have major repercussions for our interest in the region, as well as for Iranian secular democracy movement. We will feel the ripple effects of Condi's misguided Iran policy across the Islamist-Fascist world long after "W" is out of the office.

Then, the only question that will be left for a new US president on Iran will be: Shall we serve the "Grand Bargain" on a gold or silver platter to the mullahs?

What a shame and a disaster this administration has made out of our Iran policy.

NIE on Iran: A Left Wing Conspiracy

2007-12-04T11:13:00.000-08:00

Once again, the “Intelligence Community” has proven that they are not intelligent at all, and the term is an oxymoronic one. What's more, they have now become pawns for our own Iran appeasers. You know, the usual suspects, the border-line pro-Islamist Democrats (Barrack Hussein Obama with his grand sleeping-with-the-enemy fantasies when he becomes President, Kerry who has a soft spot in his heart for the Euro-mullah Khatami/“Reformists” in Iran; etc. Furthermore, the "Intelligence Community" has now also become pawns for the Administration's own Iran-Appeasers and "Grand Bargain" advocates (the likes of the grand foreign policy screw-upper Condi et al., Robert Gates the sentimentally reluctant Defense Minister, Admiral Fallon who actually promotes doing nothing militarily against Iran, etc.)

In the style of Hillary, it should be said that it is indeed a vast “Intelligence Community/Iran Appeasers” Left Wing conspiracy.

But it is not as important that the NIE report on Iran is a total farce. It is.
What is more important is that it already has damaged further an already weak Iran policy that was on the verge of collapse anyway. And that’s no matter how the President tries to spin it the other way in his news conferences. It shows again this administration’s failed Iran policy. That's what happens when one lets go of the helm to Condi et al.

And so Tehran wins another round again.

Our Misguided Iran Policy Will Hurt Us

2007-11-26T10:43:00.000-08:00

Even Lott is bailing out now. Australia shifted away from conservatism. What’s the next shoe to drop? Nationally and internationally, things are certainly not looking good for Conservatives everywhere, including our own Republicans for '08.

This apparent downfall of the conservatives is due to the anti-hero role they have played in: (a) Not having a sensible Islamist-Fascist regimes policy, and (b) Not being able to stop the "Conventional Wisdom" of the unqualified foreign policy “experts” like Condi Rice, float to the top in their policy towards Islamist-Fascist regimes such as the one in Iran.

And isn’t that the best gift the Iranian mullahs could have ever received? They cannot be more energetic and gleeful about how everything is turning into their favor right now. They are killing more and more Americans and Iraqis in Iraq through their “Ghods Force” operatives, as well as assassinating Iranian-opposed Iraqi leaders inside Iraq, both for months now. Meanwhile, they are fast making lots of head way towards getting their nuclear weapons goals, as it was made possible by IAEA and Al Baradei’s incompetence and appeasement towards Iran. The regime has sharply turned to Russia, buying everything from political advice, military equipment, commercial airplanes, to nuclear material from them. The mullahs are basically turning Iran into a virtual satellite of Putin’s Russia, and recently even offering Russia concessions on a large part of what the Iranians had rights to in the oil-rich Caspian Sea.

And the United Sates of America has allowed all this to happen under our collective noses without imposing any serious consequences on Iran or Russia. Oh sure, there are the ineffective, anemic sanctions against Iran at the UNSC once in a while, and then, some occasional ‘hot and hollow rhetoric’ spewing out of Washington every now and again threatening Iran with military strikes, etc., but none with any actual teeth or intention behind them.

The fact is that the Iranian mullahs know we are losing it in our policy towards them. And as long as our Iran policy in particular, and our policy towards Islamist-Fascists, in general, is being cooked up and directed by the likes of Condi Rice, Robert Gates, and their cohorts; “appeasement, retreat, and timidity” will be our foreign policy brand name in the Iranian region, and the Iranian regime will remain firmly in power to cause everyone even more grief for the foreseeable future.

Where are the Vice President and the President to correct our “Road to Hell” policy towards Iran? And why are they silent?

God only help us.

Conservatives Lose in Australia, Could US be Next?

2007-11-25T10:59:00.001-08:00

We are even back to the pre-911 attitude even in the US, especially as it is reflected in the Bush administration's generally empty rhetoric, and timid appeasing attitude vis a vis the Iranian dictatorship who is killing more Americans and Iraqis every day. In fact, I have even given up on our very own administration on Iran; let alone Australia’s.

In conservative vs. liberal election cycles, what historically and normally happens is that the trend, for or against, starts with one conservative western government losing in elections, and that is usually the harbinger for more western countries conservative administrations losing in elections, as well, later. The same is true for the liberals losing. The conservative/liberal wins or losses seem to “catch on” and affect other countries elections afterwards.

Australia could be an alarm bell for the Republicans and Rudi Giuliani, to be sure.

Here: with a Barrack Hussein Obama in the White House, Islamic Fascism will have a sweep of successive victories in the Iranian region. With a Hillary in the White House, say good-bye to regime change in Iran, and say Hello to "Grand Bargain" with the Euro-mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani.

God only help us.

Negotiation Is Futile

2007-11-17T16:44:00.000-08:00

IAEA was Condi Rice's idea to begin with. Her state department’s misguided, uninformed, unqualified, naive and destructively appeasing Iran policy has brought nothing but failure and grief for us. This, as the President and the Vice President just watch and say, and more importantly do, nothing.

Iranian regime has had a long history of buying off western journalists and scholars who travel to Iran by showering them with "gifts" which variably include cash, gold coins, carpets, caviar, and other goodies, in return for their favorable coverage of the Iranian regime overseas. Many such examples can be seen in US and European media, and political pundits today.

Al Baradei, the head of IAEA, is an anti-western Muslim. He is ineffective and unmotivated as well as unqualified for the job. He is a patsy for the Iranian regime. He has an Iranian wife. Rumor has it in Iran and other places, that he has even received a sum of $10 million from the Iranian regime to do its bidding in its favor in the nuclear standoff with the US. Also, Baradei has EU ties: some EU political elite use Al Baradei to stave off any military action against the Iranian regime by the US.

Iranian regime consists of Shiite mullahs and their cohorts who have a dream of a sort of final Judgment Day in the region and the world. They are an apocalyptic cult who believe and expect the appearance of the fictitious 12th "Absent Imam Mahdi" when mayhem and chaos overtakes the world.

Shiitism was born through the sword in Iran during the Savafid dynasty as an off shoot of the Arabian Peninsula Sunni original version of Islam (which has equally barbaric history). The breeding ground for Shiitism in particular has been violence, mayhem, martyrdom, murder, and chaos. And it still breeds morbidity and chaos to this day. The sole representative of Shiitism cult in the world today is the Iranian regime. This is akin to Germany being the sole flag bearer of Nazism in the 1930s and into the 1940s in Europe.

Any negotiations or talk with the Iranian regime is based on naiveté, and will be meaningless and futile.

It’s time to stop fooling ourselves. What came with the sword must ultimately go with the sword.

US Good Cop/Bad Cop Iran Policy Backfiring

2007-11-17T13:17:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, the mercurial Iran policy of the current administration is also contributing to Iranian regime's recent winning streak from New York to IAEA report.

On one hand there are bouts of tough, hot --albeit hollow-- rhetoric on military strikes; on the other hand, Condi Rice, Robert Gates, and other Iran-Appeasers in state department release Iranian prisoners from Iraq, and send appeasing signals to Tehran to make good and sleep in same bed.

This dual policy is being laughed at in Tehran, and the regime is taking full advantage of the American timidity and chaos when it comes to confronting the regime in Iran.

Some political elite in the US (mainly the left, Democrats, and Democrats disguised as Republicans), and ceratinly in Europe, are even and still waiting for Khatami and Rafsanjani --Europe's favorite Mullahs-- to return (with their help), and save the day for the west. THAT is their ultimate goal, not the total elimination of the regime, or any regime change.

As long as we have this ineffective and ridiculous policy towards Iran, our position will continue to erode in the region and in the world.
God only help us.

So-called Student Protests in Iran

2007-11-02T16:00:00.000-07:00

Do people of Iran deserve the democracy they once had during Dr. Mossadegh's premiership in the late 40s to early 1950s? Definitely, yes.

But do not confuse these "student protests" with the real thing. These student organizations are committed to preserving the Islamist regime of Tehran minus Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. Ask any of these “protesting students”, and they will tell you that they will be perfectly happy if a Khatami, or a Rafsanjani came back to power. That is ALL they have been commissioned to do by the Euro-mullah ‘reformists’. This is not a genuine protest for a secular democracy, or for the total elimination of the Islamist regime.

The student organizations have been created, instigated, supported, and induced by Ahmadinejad's opposition within the regime: namely, the 'reformists' who are the European mullah faction like the Khatamis and Rafsnajanis of the world. The “reformists” are staging these “protests” against the Ahmadinejad regime in a bid to prepare the atmosphere in their favor in time for next year’s parliamentary “elections” in the spring. The Euro-mullahs cannot directly criticize Ahmadinejad, so they use these student organizations as their proxy.

Let’s not fool ourselves. Not every "protest" in Iran is genuinely democratic or seeks a secular democracy in Iran to replace the current Islamist-Fascist regime. Those genuine kinds of protests are just NOT HAPPENING in Iran.

So if you are happy with a return of the Euro-mullah Islamic Republic with the likes of Khatami, then believe and applaud for these "protests". If, on the other hand, you want the total and complete elimination of the current Theocracy of Turds of Tehran, then we have to think in other terms and methods to decapitate the whole of the regime.

Does 'Regime Change' in Iran Mean the same to Everyone?

2007-10-27T04:54:00.000-07:00

Caveat: We must define 'Regime Change' more precisely. As it may mean different outcomes to different interests jockeying for position for the future of Iran.

Currently, as in the past before Ahmadinejad, there are missions and efforts by some political elite in the west (mostly in European capitals, and also amongst US Democrats who sing the same tune as EU vis a vis Iran, e.g., Iranian regime appeasers like Kerry, Biden, Barack Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter, etc.) who are pursuing the replacement of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei gang with Khatami and/or Rafsanjani faction to call it good in Iran. Now, THAT’s NOT Regime Change. The Iranian people have already been down that trap and they do not wish a repeat or return to the same, old ‘smiling wolf disguised as a sheep’ rule of the ‘reformists.

The definition of "Regime Change", as far as the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people are concerned, is a total and complete elimination of the current Islamic 'Republic' including all of its parts: i.e., the eradication of all the hardliners as well as the total decapitation of all the the so-called 'reformists' with various European ties (i.e., led by the left over Euro-mullahs like Khatami brothers and the Rafsanjani Mafia group.)

"Regime Change", as far as the Iranian people are concerned, is a total and complete elimination of the current Islamic 'Republic' including all of its parts: i.e., the eradication of all the hardliners as well as the total decapitation of all the the so-called 'reformists' with European ties (i.e., led by the left over Euro-mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani.)

The Regime Change that the Iranian people desire, is a flip and a 180 degree change to a secular democracy void of any religion wherein no clergy, and especially no former official(s) of the current Islamic 'Republic,' are allowed to participate in politics according to the revised Iranian constitution which will ban any such participation by clergy in the new government.

The Islamist 'reformists' like Khatami inside Tehran Theocracy of Terror only wished they had a little bit of Kerensky's guts or genuineness. Khatami and Rafsanjani and their cohorts are actually in cahoots with the Iranian Bolsheviks like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, Jannati, etc, but they pretend otherwise just to deceive the west and the Iranian people alike. They are all in cahoots with one another to 'save' the regime at any cost to land and people. The only difference is that the Khatamites do it by being cunning and 'pragmatic' with the west, but the hardliners do it straight out without an apology. Both groups are evil, playing good cop/ bad cop for the west and the Iranian masses.

The question that begs to be asked here is this: Is everyone involved on the same page when they talk about the definition ‘Regime Change’ in Iran? Otherwise, it’s easy to fall into the same, old trap with a definition-less term, only to wake up one morning and see Rafsanjani as the president, and Khatami as the ‘Supreme Leader’, with a content EU and Democratic White House supporting both all the way ('Grand Bargain' anyone?) We have seen that farce before, and it ain’t pretty.
http://mor2com.blogspot.com/

Critical Iran Eventualities & Nuances

2007-10-26T14:58:00.000-07:00

Anyone with a basic knowledge of history and race knows that Iran is no Iraq. Persians are ethnically distinct from Arabs, and the population in Iran, mostly composed of people under 30 years old, is the most pro-western, educated, and sophisticated bunch in the Middle East. What’s more, they loathe and despise the Islamic regime and want it gone.

In fact, the people of Iran have not forgotten their close but short contemporary experience in the late 40s to early 50s, with democracy: the democratic, secular movement led by Dr. Mossadegh, the nationalistic popular leader. And even before that, the first Constitution in the entire Middle East was written around a 100-years ago by Constitutional revolutionaries in Iran who wanted to limit the powers of the Shah (King) through the establishment of the first parliamentary system of its kind in the greater region.

Yes, a religious dictatorship was imposed on Iran in 1979, but the Iranian people have not lost their identity, or their inherent creativity and intelligence. Nor have they lost their sense of history as descendants to a great civilization. In fact, the rulers of Iran today are considered by common people as "non-Persians", or they are referred to as the “2nd Arab Invasion” by regular Iranians. The people in Iran may sometimes seem too patient under dictatorship, persecution, and pressure until the pressure gets to the point of explosion. And when that occurs, they will use any opening, however small, to rise and stage a regime change. And you will not have a rebellion without conviction, or result once it does happen.

The reason for the sporadic nature of the protests so far is that the opposition has not united and gathered enough momentum to induce a solid and sure stage for the workers, women, ethnic minorities, students, etc. to all come out en masse in the streets with the intent to overthrow the Theocracy. However, there are now signs that the perfect storm may be starting to form.

Economic sanctions will help in creating more momentum for such a popular uprising, but they are not enough. There needs to be a united front, a unifying figure, or ideology through which all opposition can amalgamate with a common goal of ending the Islamic regime in its totality, and forming the basis for a secular democracy.

The pitfall to be avoided though, is that certain European faction “reformist” mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani may succeed to take advantage of the peoples' revolt to their own advantage and attempt to “steal the ball” from the people. If the ‘reformists’ succeed in that effort, it will mean a renewal of life for the Islamic regime for the foreseeable future. This is contrary to what the people of Iran want: a secular democracy.

Same caveat must be applied to any military strikes. We must be very careful where and how we apply military pressure for optimum results. Military strikes could be a two-edged sword when it comes to the eventuality of the total elimination of the regime in Iran.

For instance, if ALL the power centers and interests of the entirety of the regime (i.e., both hardliners as well as the reformists) are hit militarily, or their leaders (both hardliner and reformist) are eliminated (physically if possible) covertly or by military means, this will be quiet effective since any such comprehensive shock to the regime as a whole will most likely provide the final the spark needed for a people to finally rise up and eradicate the Islamic regime as a whole. For after all, a snake without a head is easier to conquer.
If, however, ONLY the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) or the Ghods Force alone are the targets of military strikes, that will weaken only the hardliners (Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, et al) in the regime and actually boost the chances for the ‘refromists’ (EU-supported Khatami, Rafsanjani, et al.) to position themselves for a pounce on the opportunity to return to power again.

And if the ‘reformist’ Khatamites return to power again this way, it will pave the way for the resuming of activities on the part of US liberals, or a Democrat in the White House, to rekindle the “Grand Bargain” all over again with Khatami and Rafsanjani which will guarantee a brand new lease on life for the Islamic regime, but deny the people of Iran their chance to establish their desired secular democracy.

Iran Appeasers Leverett and Mann Worked for Condi

2007-10-22T16:02:00.000-07:00

In the years after 9/11, Iran Appeasers Flynt Leverett and his wife Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. The goal was to strike a "Grand Bargain" with the Iranian regime guaranteeing that US will not try to change the form of government in Iran, in return for certain "promises" by Tehran not to support Islamic terrorist organizations.

Below is a part of their report.

The full report can be found at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E0DE1131F931A15751C1A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Alos in Esquire article: http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

Iran will only cooperate with the United States, whether in Iraq or on the nuclear issue, as part of a broader rapprochement addressing its core security concerns. This requires extension of a United States security guarantee -- effectively, an American commitment not to use force to change the borders or form of government of the Islamic Republic -- bolstered by the prospect of lifting United States unilateral sanctions and normalizing bilateral relations. This is something no United States administration has ever offered, and that the Bush administration has explicitly refused to consider.

Indeed, no administration would be able to provide a security guarantee unless United States concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, regional role and support for terrorist organizations were definitively addressed. That is why, at this juncture, resolving any of the significant bilateral differences between the United States and Iran inevitably requires resolving all of them. Implementing the reciprocal commitments entailed in a ''grand bargain'' would almost certainly play out over time and in phases, but all of the commitments would be agreed up front as a package, so that both sides would know what they were getting.

Unfortunately, the window for pursuing a comprehensive settlement with Iran will not be open indefinitely. The Iranian leadership is more radicalized today, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, than it was three years ago, and could become more radicalized in the future, depending on who ultimately succeeds Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as supreme leader. If President Bush does not move decisively toward strategic engagement with Tehran during his remaining two years in office, his successor will not have the same opportunities that he will have so blithely squandered.

Is the Vice President Rooting for the Return of the "Reformists"?

2007-10-22T13:51:00.000-07:00

Bin Laden released a video today in which he admitted that mistakes were made by Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It seems that Al-Qaeda and the Iranian regime operatives in Iraq have been dealt effective blows after the US military surge.

But, this is not the time for us to rest on our laureates. This is a window of opportunity to go in for ‘complete kill’ of the forces behind the insurgency in Iraq, mainly Iran and to some degree its lackey Syria.

This struggle against Islamic Fascism will not be over, until such time as we face the instigator and financer of all Islamic terror, our enemy: the Iranian regime, once and for all with resolve and serious action.

But, judging by the hollow rhetoric (with no action backing it) that is coming out of US administration, it is very doubtful that we are planning to face Iran in a serious or meaningful way anytime soon. Case in point, Vice President Cheney’s comments on Sunday that “We are prepared to impose serious consequences” if Iran “stays on its current path”. This statement was made, apparently, in a reaction to the firing of Iran’s Ali Larijani (a ‘Reformist’ with British ties) who headed the nuclear negotiations with EU’s Solana. Larijani was replaced by a hardliner who is a close associate of Ahmadinejad. The Vice President’s conditional statement for penalties “if Iran stays on its current path” is interesting in that it could be construed as US administration still hopeful that the European mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani could take over power in an internal coup against Ahmadinejad and company.

The fact is that our lack of any decisive, serious action with resolve to confront the regime as a whole could be interpreted as the hope for compromise with another “form” of the same regime in Iran. Despite the innuendo and rhetoric, Washington seems to be going towards appeasement of the European faction within the regime in Iran (the “Reformists”.) And any coming military strike by us would be limited and will be targeted on the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) power centers to weaken the hardliners' position vis a vis the "Reformists" within the regime in Tehran. It is then hoped that the clergy "Reformists" with European ties could take power out of the hands of a weakened Ahmadinejad and company.

So much for regime change.

Putin & The Price of Desperation

2007-10-18T11:22:00.001-07:00

The price that the Islamic Republic of Terror in Iran had to pay the murderous "Polonium" Putin for his 2-bit support of Iranian nuclear weapons activities was for Iran to give HUGE concessions to Russia on the Caspian Basin legal rights and boundaries. The Iranian National Front has a declaration about this, and calls this shameful concession the worst Caspian Sea concession against Iranian interests since the Ghajar Dynasty's rule in Iran. (http://jebhemelli.net/htdocs/statements/2007/10_October/INF_Russia_Cspi an%20Sea.htm)

Such is the background to Putin, the Rouski Dictator who poisons his enemies with Polonium, officially teaming up with the Theocracy of Turds in Tehran, the murderous regime of Islamic Republic of Terror in Iran. What a truly appalling pair!

We must face the music, and prepare ourselves for the ultimate conflict that is looming ever so closer by each passing day.

We cannot run away from this battle like the state department is doing now. Bush administration's Iran policy, with appeasers like Condi Rice and Robert Gates in charge, is a total disaster so far.

The President must take things into own hands and be the "Decider" soon, or all will be lost for a very long time in Iran and the region. So far, our response to the Iranian dictatorship as well as its long time "Sugar Daddy" Russia has been very anemic and disappointing.

As such, we cannot continue to take a holiday from the history that is taking shape before our very eyes, due partly to our inaction and timid abstinence on confronting Iran and its band of gangster supporters in a serious and meaningful way.

TAHKIM VAHDAT: A Tool of the Iranian Regime Disguised as Opposition

2007-10-16T17:10:00.000-07:00

Although it is true that certain Iranian pundits in the US are working for the Islamic dictatorship in Iran (e.g., Vali Nasr, Trita Parsi, etc.); but Iranian people loathe and reject ALL officials in the regime.The notion that the regime can 'reform' itself through "European mullahs" like Khatami and Rafsanjani is deceitful and totally and wholly rejected by the Iranian people. In fact, the so-called "Reformists" in Iran have been more treasonous and even more dangerous for the future secular Iran than any other faction inside their Theo-dictatorship. Iranians want total destruction of the Islamic Republic regime: "Hardliners" AND "Reformists" both, not the same pig but made-up with European lipsticks on it!

The student gouplet,"Tahkim Vahdat", was created by the "Reformist" camp within the Islamic fascist regime in Iran as a political and propaganda tool to re-install Khatami and the rest of the "European mullahs" back in power. What Tahkim Vahdat leaders promise is 'change'. But in fact what they have to offer is not 'change', it is more of the same rubbish as when Khatami and Rafsanjani were in power.

All democratic-minded Iranians reject the notion of reformability of a regime, especially if the new make-up is applied by mullahs like Khatami with strong European ties.

The Treason of Trita Parsi and Co.

2007-10-12T10:16:00.000-07:00

The Theocratic dictatorship in Iran has many operatives in the west in the areas of intelligence gathering, as well as through organizations like National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and TV and media pundits such as Trita Parsi, Ray Takyeh, Vali Nasr, and others(http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY9waWoRD
eOgWYzFjy5ZWEv9vkeg).

These individuals do everything they can to soften the perceptions towards the Iranian regime in the west, and to be the apologists for the regime in the United States. They are on a mission.In fact inside the US media, there are also pro-Islamists elements with ties to certain European factions, who like their Iranian counterparts above, promote appeasement of the Iranian regime and portray them as "misunderstood", examples of such reporters are Christian Amanpour, Charlie Rose, John McLaughlin (of the PBS program McLaughlin Report), Fareed Zakaria and other similar Iran-appeasers and pro-Islamist 5th column.

Reformists Protests Against Ahmadinejad

2007-10-09T11:28:00.000-07:00

We must be careful to discern staged protests instigated (and most likely financed) by the "Reformist" faction within the Islamist Regime with genuine peoples protest with the intention to end the Islamic regime.Unfortunately even the analysts on the right, are avoiding or ignoring the fact that Euro-mullah 'Reformists' inside the regime, led by Rafsanjani and Khatami, have been and are preparing themselves for a sort of a Coup to pounce back into power by ousting Ahmadinejad, and hence save the regime from being destroyed.

These student 'protests' should be looked upon more in that light rather than a call for ending the regime by the protestors. The protests and slogans are mainly against Ahmadinejad and indirectly aganist Khamenei who lead the faction of the Hardliners in the regime. This is just infighting between the 'Reformists' and 'Hardliners' over which one will continue to lead the regime.

And as such, analysts should take care not to fall into the notion that the cause of these small, anemic, scattered, and isolated protests have anything to do with ending the regime as a whole.

This coming "change" is actually not a "change", but just a reversion to what the form of the regime was before Ahmadinejad came into power in June 2006 under Khatami, Europe's darling mullah.And as such, this is exactly what is coming for Iran if US continues to sit on its hands and not do something drastic to change the situation around soon. Unless, of course, we like to see an Islamic Republic pig albeit decorated with European lipstick come into power in Iran in the near future.

For more articles and blogs on Iran, please go to: http://mor2com.blogspot.com/

The Coming Return of Euro-mullahs to Iran

2007-10-07T14:36:00.000-07:00

Certain factions within the EU aristocractic political elite who support appeasement/sleeping-in-the-same bed foreign policy towards Islamists (remember Jack Straw?). We have our own share of this breed in the US: Kerry, Soros, Obama, Biden, and other Euro-politicians, and their supporters in the media (NBC, Charlie Rose, McLaughlin, to name just a few.) These same appeasers, who have always had soft spots in their hearts for the Iranian mullahs, are trying to prevent any serious action against the regime by the US. And the Archbishop of Canterbury is the lates convenient mouthpiece spewing the same line of appeasement towards the Iranian regime in his latest utterings(see:http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/10/06/the_archbishops_sermon.php#comments. Afterall, the said Archbishop is basically acting like a Christian Ayatollah.

What the Europeans are trying to do (maybe minus France now) is to see if they can get their own elements, i.e, Rafsanjani and Khatami gang, back into power in Iran. That will kill 3 birds with one stone in that they get rid of Ahamdinejad and Khamenei(eventually and later, as the new head of the council, Rafsanjani can convince the 'Council of Experts' to replace Khamenei upon his death, or sooner, with Khatami. It was initially Rafsanjani who made the same council elect Khamenei himself as the Supreme Leader many years ago.)

Second, Rafsanjani and Khatami will most likley put a freeze on the nuclear activities of Iran, hence satisfying US and Israel.

The third is a point of slefish economic profit for Europe itself: Under Rafsanjani and/or Khatami, EU will reclaim all the contracts they lost to the Russians and the Chinese under Ahmadinejad's reign.

And frankly, judging by President Bush's back-pedalling on Iran in the last few days, people who back the archbishop are winning in their effort to neuter US into inaction against the regime.
The only losers, as usual, will be the Iranian democracy and people; and of course American interests in the region.

Any 'limited strike' against the Ghods Force and/or the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) which may occur should be looked at with the same eye. Gordon Brown is reportedly a string proponent of such a strike on the IRGC. The 'limited strike' is not designed for, nor will it be effective as, a tool for regime change in Iran. Regime change may only happen if a massive bombing campaign of all the regime's power centers (not only the IRGC) is conducted with the specific intention of targeting the regime and prompt it to fall. This outcome is far from what the European powers, who have lucrative and vested economic interests in Iran, want. So why is the UK supporting a purported 'limited strike' against the IRGC? We need some background to be able to answer that question.

These are just 4 of the main units created by the Iranian regime to ensure its survival by having many separate entities-- distribution of power-- in order to have redundancy in its safety and security against any foreign or internal enemies who may try to topple the regime militarily or otherwise:

--The IRGC: separate entity form the Iranian army, akin to Sadam's Elite Republic Guards involved in everything from oil industry contracts to protecting the regime. The SS gaurds of the regime.

-- The Baseej Force: paramilitary urban Gestapo to quash urban unrest, civil disobedience, workers, women, student anti-regime demonstrations, etc.

--The Ghods Force: an offshoot of the IRGC with special operations over-the-border raid capability, foreign insurgency terrorist training, and conducting of terrorist operations inside the neighboring countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Azerbaijan to try to topple the neighboring governments and help install Islamist states with ties to Tehran in those countries.

--The Mahdi Army (Jaysh-Al-Mahdi): an 'army' created by the Iranian regime plan and financing which operates in southern Iraq and is headed by Tehran-supported radical Shiite mullah, Moghtada Al-Sadr, to create instability across Iraq. The goal is to cause as much mayhem and unrest for US forces as possible, and to ultimately establish an Islamist Iranian sattelite state in Iraq under Iranian control.

The IRGC, and the Baseej in particular, are close allies of the current President n Iran, Ahamdinejad and his cohorts, radical Ayatollahs like Jannati, Mesbah-Yazdi, and of course the Supreme Leader Khamenei himself.

The "Reformists" on the other hand, are the likes of Rafsanjani and Khatami who both have European ties. Khatami was the President before June 2006 when Ahamdinejad came into power. In his younger years, Khatami studied Islam in Germany. Khatami's classmate was none other than Ayatollah Beheshti who later died in a bombing incident where 72 of the top elite leadership of the regime were killed in the early years after 1979 Islamists take over of Iran. Beheshti had German citizenship and a German wife. Khatami and his classmate Beheshti both attended the Hambourg Islamic Institute.

Rafsanjani too, is a shadowy, multi-faced character, who when President of Iran before Khatami, had extensive ties with western European countries, as well as with the Canadian government under Chretien. He was responsible for many assassinations and executions of dissidents in Europe and in Iran. He has also been named as an accomplice in ordering the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina during his presidency. He has enormous wealth due to his family's monopoly of the oil industry and receiving illegal kick-backs from European corporations in return for allowing them concessions in doing business in Iran. It has also been reproted in Iran and other international sources that Rafsanjani owns several real estate mega-properties in Canada, including shopping malls, and even a small town.

It is then no surprise that certain European political and economic elite desire a return of pro-Europe elements inside the Iranian regime. In its history, Iran and Europe never had the huge trade volumes achieved under Rafsanjani and Khatami.

And as such, Iran turned into a 'Cash Cow' for European corporate interest. After 1979, and especially in the 80s and 90s, Europeans were awarded huge economic advantage in Iran that they could not have dreamt of when the Shah was in power.

In return, throughout 80s and 90s, Europe provided ample political support for the regime in international forums, and even indirectly allowed Tehran to do its dirty work on European soil through numerous assassinations of dissidents who the regime perceived as threats to it.

Iran Ship Sailing Away from US

2007-10-05T15:35:00.000-07:00

Certain factions within the EU aristocratic political elite who support appeasement/sleeping-in-the-same bed foreign policy towards Islamists (remember Jack Straw?). We have our own share of this breed in the US: Kerry, Soros, Obama, Biden, and other Euro-politicians, and their supporters in the media (NBC, Charlie Rose, McLaughlin, to name just a few.) These same appeasers, who have always had soft spots in their hearts for the Iranian mullahs, are trying to prevent any serious action against the regime by the US. And the Archbishop of Canterbury is the latest convenient mouthpiece spewing the same line of appeasement towards the Iranian regime in his latest moans where the Archbishop is basically sounding like a Christian Iranian Ayatollah.(see: http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/10/06/the_archbishops_sermon.php#comments.)

What the Europeans are trying to do in Iran (minus France now, perhaps) is to see if they can get their own elements, i.e., Rafsanjani and Khatami gang, back into power in Iran. That will kill 3 birds with one stone in that they get rid of Ahamdinejad and Khomeini(eventually and later, as the new head of the council, Rafsanjani can convince the 'Council of Experts' to replace Khamenei upon his death, or sooner, with Khatami. It was initially Rafsanjani who made the same council elect Khamenei himself as the Supreme Leader many years ago.)Second, Rafsanjani and Khatami will most likely put a freeze on the nuclear activities of Iran, hence satisfying US and Israel.The third is a point of selfish economic profit for Europe itself: Under Rafsanjani and/or Khatami, EU will reclaim all the contracts they lost to the Russians and the Chinese under Ahmadinejad's reign. Any 'limited strike' against the Ghods Force and/or the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) which may occur should be looked at in the same vein. Gordon Brown is reportedly a strong proponent of such a limited strike on the IRGC (but not a massive bombing campaign desigen to topple the regime.)

The 'limited strike' is not designed for, nor will it be effective, as a tool for regime change in Iran. Regime change could only happen if a massive bombing campaign of all of the regime's power centers (not only the IRGC) is conducted with the specific intention of targeting the regime and prompt it to fall. This outcome is far from what the European powers, who have lucrative and vested economic interests in Iran, want. So why is the UK supporting a purported 'limited strike' against the IRGC? Read on.
**************************************************************************************************
There are at least 4 armed main units created by the Iranian regime to ensure its survival, and ideological expansion by having many separate entities-- distribution of power-- in order to have redundancy in its safety and security against any foreign or internal enemies who may try to topple the regime militarily or otherwise:

--The IRGC: separate entity form the Iranian army, akin to Saddam's Elite Republic Guards involved in everything from oil industry contracts to protecting the regime. The SS guards of the regime.

-- The Baseej Force: paramilitary urban Gestapo to quash urban unrest, civil disobedience, workers, women, student anti-regime demonstrations, etc.

--The Ghods Force: an offshoot of the IRGC with special operations over-the-border raid capability, foreign insurgency terrorist training, and conducting of terrorist operations inside the neighboring countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Azerbaijan to try to topple the neighboring governments and help install Islamist states with ties to Tehran in those countries.

--The Mahdi Army (Jaysh-Al-Mahdi): an 'army' created by the Iranian regime plan and financing which operates in southern Iraq and is headed by Tehran-supported radical Shiite mullah, Moghtada Al-Sadr, to create instability across Iraq. The goal is to cause as much mayhem and unrest for US forces as possible, and to ultimately establish an Islamist Iranian satellite state in Iraq under Iranian control.

The IRGC, and the Baseej in particular, are close allies of the current President n Iran, Ahamdinejad and his cohorts, radical Ayatollahs like Jannati, Mesbah-Yazdi, and of course the Supreme Leader Khamenei himself. The "Reformists" on the other hand, are the likes of Rafsanjani and Khatami who both have European ties.

Khatami was the President before June 2006 when Ahamdinejad came into power. In his younger years, Khatami studied Islam in Germany. Khatami's classmate was none other than Ayatollah Beheshti who later died in a bombing incident where 72 of the top elite leadership of the regime were killed in the early years after 1979 Islamists take over of Iran. Beheshti had German citizenship and a German wife. Khatami and his classmate Beheshti both attended the Hambourg Islamic Institute.

Rafsanjani too, is a shadowy, multi-faced character, who when President of Iran before Khatami, had extensive ties with western European countries, as well as with the Canadian government under Chrétien. He was responsible for many assassinations and executions of dissidents in Europe and in Iran. He has also been named as an accomplice in ordering the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina during his presidency. He has enormous wealth due to his family's monopoly of the oil industry and receiving illegal kick-backs from European corporations in return for allowing them concessions in doing business in Iran. It has also been reported in Iran and other international sources that Rafsanjani owns several real estate mega-properties in Canada, including shopping malls, and even a small town.

In all of their history, Iran and Europe never had the huge trade volumes achieved under Rafsanjani and Khatami. And as such, Iran turned into a 'Cash Cow' for European corporate interest. After 1979, and especially in the 80s and 90s, Europeans were awarded huge economic advantage in Iran that they could not have dreamt of when the Shah was in power.In return, throughout 80s and 90s, Europe provided ample political support for the regime in international forums, and even indirectly allowed Tehran to do its dirty work on European soil through numerous assassinations of dissidents who the regime perceived as threats to it.

A selective ‘limited strike’ against the IRGC and Ghods Force, and not a massive bombing of all of the regime’s power centers which could cause the regime to fall, is just what the “Reformists” in Iran need to weaken the hand of the Ahmadinejad’s faction and to strengthen them. If and when the strike occurs, Rafsanjani could easily use the military strike on IRGC as a convenient tool to scare and convince the ‘Council of Experts’ which he leads, to strip Ahamdinejad of all his powers, declare state of emergency, and pave the road for Rafsanjani and the “Reformists” to return to power.

And eventually if not sooner, the western pro-regime appeasers both in Europe and America hope, that Khamenei himself could be ousted from the Supreme Leadership seat and replaced, perhaps, by Khatami. And there you will have the start of a new phase of and Islamic Republic which the west can actually live and trade with. And as soon as the new, pro-European Islamic regime is established in Tehran, an immediate and indefinite suspension or freeze of all Iranian nuclear activities will be declared, and all will be verified and forgiven.

Frankly, judging by President Bush's back-pedaling on Iran in the last few days, people who back the esteemed Archbishop are winning in their effort to neuter US into inaction against the regime.

Meanwhile, while Washington is bogged down with weakness, inaction, and indecision due to internal strife on what, if anything, to do about Iran, it seems that the American political advantage and leverage in Iran is disappearing fast, and as such, potentially for a long time to come.

And then, the only losers, as usual, will be the Iranian democracy and people; and of course American interests in the region.

The Real Danger for Iran

2007-10-05T01:21:00.000-07:00

The term Islamo-fascist is too broad a brush. But Having said that, it is fitting to the Theocracy in Iran.

Condi, the Mistress of Dominatrix outfits, is of the Madeleine Albright school of thought in that she is against military attack on Iran, and pro appeasement of the mullahs, and "sleeping with the enemy" (no pun intended) within the framework of a "Grand Bargain" which will gaurantee that US will not try to overthrow the regime, if and only if Iran stops supporting Islamic terrorists around the world, and also stop its nuclear activities (like THAT's gonna ever happen, even if the mullahs promise all!). Suffice it to say, Condi is no friend of the Iranian people or a future Iranian democracy, either.

The term Mao-Islamist was a label that was placed on certain political dissident groups under the Shah in the 70s. There were actual groups proclaiming they were Mao-Islamists in Iran in the 70s, it was a sort of mix of Chinese socialism and Islam. Rumour has it that Ahmadinejad's "career" started off as an active member of such groups back in the early 70s. And of course, we see today that Beijing is one of the most ardent supporters of the current Iranian regime, albeit more for cheap oil and other economic advantages for itself than anything else. But geopolitically, China also see the Islamic Republic of Terror in Iran, as its pseudo-proxy to ward off further US expansion in the region. Other than that, I am not even sure that the Red Chinese are "Maoists" themselves. They are more like "Profiteers", like the "Farangi" in Star Trek Next Generation, without ethics or scruple. Further it seems that Myanmar too is now closing in on a shift away from China and into the British circle of influence. As Pakistan is shifting away from US and back to its traditional British roots, as well, if Benazir is back on the saddle there soon. That leaves Iran...

And that is exactly the danger that threatens Iran, even more than war with the US: An internal "coup" within the Iranian regime, supported by the Brits (among other Europeans) to oust Ahmadinejad (Russian/Chinese faction) with their own Rafsanjani (British ties) and/or Khatami (German and Austrian ties) and their cohorts. If successful, this is extremely dangerous for Iran's future since it will basically give a renewed lease on life for the regime to survive as a "pig with lipstick" for perhaps another 28-years, or so. The bombing of the Rev Guards, IRGC, base, if it occurs, could be exactly what Rafsanjani and the Khatamites need to convince the Supreme Leader to back off, and allow the phony "Reformists" and the fake "Pragmatists" back at the helm of power in Iran with full support from Europeans (as it was during Khatami's reign). And that may be exactly why Gordon Brown is reportedly so eager and excited in his approval of such a "limited strike" against the IRGC.

Iranian people reject this kind of just 'changing of the guards' solution to their current problem. As an Iranian saying goes, that will be akin to having "the same mule, but with a different pack-saddle". An overwhelming majority of Iranians detest the Islamic dictatorship imposed on them since 1979 (with Europe's backing). They want change, real change, and that means the total up-rooting of this nasty regime, "Reformists" and all.

Too bad, they are too numb and disillusioned to act on that desire. They have a lot to learn from Myanmar and its budding Saffron Revolution.

Iranian Regime Plays For Time As G8 Meeting Looms

2006-06-27T10:41:00.000-07:00

Two important things are occurring right now on Iran and the nuclear standoff:

1) Iranian regime is buying time -- Reportedly a lag time of 2 months has been asked by Iranian nuclear officials from Ahmadinejad and the central government in Tehran on a response to UNSC/West on the Incentives Package in lieu of stopping all enrichment activity. The reason for this 2 months delay is that Iranian regime is planning for yet another surprise announcement that it considers "good news": that the regime’s enrichment (which reached 3% in April) will surpass 10% by August.

Iranian regime is hoping that with raising the stakes in such a way, it could make the West/U.S. to not only grant it all the previously offered incentives, but to additionally give the theocracy the "Security Guarantees" (promise not to attack Iran militarily, and not to try to topple the regime) that it desperately seeks from the U.S.

2) The upcoming G8 meeting in Russia will be critical in determining Iranian regime’s ultimate faith. -- Putin is seeking lots of incentives from US, the largest of which is over substantial reduction or nullification of Russian goods import tariffs to the West and U.S.

Putin will also ask US to allow Russia to SELL ARMS & MILITARY EQUIPMENT to the new government of Iraq, and to other governments in the region that are currently under U.S. hegemony.

These contracts sought by Russia, if granted, will be extremely lucrative for its failing economy, and are critical to its survival in the next decade as it grapples with a dwindling population growth (negative growth in Russia's population), and a weak economy.

In return, Russia has agreed that it will commit to the US/West's position on Iranian nuclear issue, and that Russia will be squarely aboard with the US on the ultimate faith of the regime in Tehran.

Again, the nuclear issue, at best; was, and continues to be just a "side show".